CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has sought the response of Odisha Assembly Speaker Surama Padhy on petitions filed by the BJD challenging her decision to reject pleas seeking disqualification of eight party MLAs for allegedly cross-voting in the Rajya Sabha elections held in March.
The matter came up before Justice RK Pattanaik on Friday, who posted the matter for further hearing on September 29 while seeking the Speaker’s response by then.
BJD chief whip Pramila Mallik has filed eight separate petitions challenging the Speaker’s June 19 notification rejecting her disqualification petitions against party MLAs Arvind Mohapatra, Sanatan Mahakud, Chakramani Kanhar, Devi Ranjan Tripathy, Naba Kishor Mallick, Souvic Biswal, Subasini Jena and Ramakant Bhoi.
Two of the petitions involving MLAs Chakramani Kanhar and Subasini Jena came up for hearing on Friday. While senior advocate Milan Kanungo along with advocate Asish Mishra made preliminary submissions on behalf of Mallik, advocate general Pitambar Acharya representing the Speaker sought time to file a reply.
The Rajya Sabha election saw BJP-supported Dilip Ray defeat independent candidate and urologist Dr Datteswar Hota despite the latter receiving the backing of the BJD and Congress and the numbers apparently favouring him.
Mallik had then filed separate petitions before the Speaker seeking disqualification of the eight MLAs under the anti-defection law. However, the Speaker rejected them under Rule 7(2) of the Members of Odisha Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1987, citing procedural deficiencies.
The June 19 Assembly Secretariat notification described the BJD petitions as “cryptic, vague, unsubstantiated”, and said they did not meet the statutory requirements for consideration on merits.
According to Mallick’s petitions filed in the high court, the Speaker failed to adjudicate the allegations on merits and dismissed the petitions over defects that were curable. “The Speaker ought to have allowed rectification by directing to comply with the provisions envisaged in R-6 of the Rules, 1987,” the petition said.
It further argued that rejecting the petitions merely on technical grounds defeated the constitutional purpose of the anti-defection law.